RALEIGH, N.C., April 30 -- The North Carolina Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected state House and Senate districts drawn last year by Democratic leaders of the state Legislature, agreeing with Republican claims that the remapping divided too many counties.
The court, in a split decision, ruled that the new maps violated the "whole-county" provisions added to North Carolina's state Constitution in 1968, which say the General Assembly "may not divide counties in creating Senate and House of Representative districts except to the extent necessary to comply with federal law."
In ruling that the new districts were unconstitutional, the Supreme Court said counties should be divided only when necessary to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act and ensure "one- person, one-vote." It also said single-member districts should be used unless there is a "compelling state interest" for a multimember district.
"Enforcement of the WCP (whole counties provision) will, in all likelihood, foster improved voter morale, voter turnout, and public respect for state government, and specifically, the General Assembly, as an institution," said the court's majority opinion written by Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr.
The justices said Superior Court Judge Knox Jenkins Jr., who originally handled the lawsuit, should conduct a hearing on whether there is enough time for the Legislature to draw new maps for this year's elections.
The lawsuit prompted state and local officials to delay primary elections that had been scheduled for May 7.
"The General Assembly should be accorded the first opportunity to draw the new plans if so doing will not disrupt the timing of the 2002 general election," the state's high court said. But it added that the lower court could adopt "temporary or interim remedial plans" if the Legislature does not have enough time to act.
The court's decision, which could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, was split along party lines, with five Republican justices in the majority and the two Democrats dissenting.
One of the two dissenters, Associate Justice Sarah Parker, said she agreed that the "2001 legislative plans duly enacted by the General Assembly are far from perfect, and are certainly not aesthetically appealing," but she added that the majority "exceeded its constitutional authority by amending the state Constitution."NEWLN: Content: 02002000 11003000
